So, this and the thing about the guy using video to capture stills.... Canon, don't forget photographers. Also, don't forget that photography is not videography. Crank out somrthing to tickle the video industry, then get back to stills...

Lol you never fail to complain when something you're not interested in shows up on here. Can't you just ignore it and be happy for the people that shoot video? And yes there were 2 articles about video, but what about the 10 photo related posts in a row before that? Oh right, you're not interested in it so therefore Canon has forgotten about photographers. You're assuming that one takes away from the other, when in reality they are separate divisions. The Motion Picture industry is just as big or bigger than photography, just because you aren't a part of it doesn't mean they don't deserve any new gear.

I'm curious as to what piece of gear you are looking for that you feel is holding you back so much, because clearly you are looking for something specific and not seeing it. So what is it?

I see a grim trend in a direction I do not like. As the old saaying goes, the squeaking wheel gets the oil. I remember a canon experimental camera from a while ago, a weird white spaceship looking thing, talking about the future of photography being the imager videoing the subject then selecting the best frames. This is NOT a direction I want things going; therefore, I make my voice known. Moreover, I am certain that I am not alone in this.

You are assuming that progress on the video front results in zero benefit on the stills front. Sensors are sensors, and they read out the same way regardless. Even if this technology will initially be applied to a low-resolution video camera's sensor does not mean it cannot be applied to high resolution photography sensors in the future. Progress on the sensor technology front is progress on the sensor technology front, and it should benefit Canon products regardless of what category they fall under in the end.

Can anyone explain why DSLRs sensors are not square which would provide more viewing area?

sensor cost goes by size, if they made them square then APS_C, to hit same cost, would've been made less width across and since many photos do end up closer to rectangular they figure it is a waste of space- my guess

some older lenses were also masked off to large rectangles too and at a certain size the mirror because trouble

We're already capturing 50% of the light that enters the camera. And noise and clarity under dark conditions are a result of quantum distribution of electrons. Meaning the noise you capture in a noisy photo is the result of noise from the light itself, not from the camera. You cannot capture less noise than exists in the incoming light, and you cannot capture more light than exists.

These videos seem to show a 4 stop improvement. My guess is that they are simulated by a marketing company and that this is designed to be misleading.

I don't ever get the angst over video advancements from still photographers. What do people think a DSLR is anyway? It is nothing but a video camera optimized for stills.

It's kind of like those who complain that they don't want to "pay" for video because they never use it. It's been explained over and over again – video capability makes DSLRs cheaper not more expensive. Unless you are using film, video enhancements inevitably makes stills photography better.

Nikon has a "lineup of legendary low-light performance sensors?" I must have missed those. Seriously, EVERY review I've read and every comparison I've looked at makes it clear that Canon's lineup of sensors far outperforms Nikon's in high ISO performance. Nikon has been emphasizing megapixels, while Canon has focused on high ISO performance. A few years ago it was the other way around, but since the introduction of the 1D-X Canon has captured the high ISO field.

Take a close look at comparison shots on any of the reputable test sites and it's clear that at higher ISOs Canon outperforms Nikon and Nikon/Sony sensors.

Seriously, EVERY review I've read and every comparison I've looked at makes it clear that Canon's lineup of sensors far outperforms Nikon's in high ISO performance.

The 1DX is probably only barely better at high ISO than the D4 and it also, I think, has a weaker CFA.Canon isn't worse at high ISO now but far better???

I wouldn't say the Canon is "far" better...things are limited largely by physics at that point. In real-world examples, I've noticed more color noise from the D4 at ISO 25600 and 51200 (probably because those settings are digitally amplified, vs. Canon's primarily analog amplification). Outside of that very slight difference, the two cameras are definitely comparable at those levels...you would be hard pressed to notice any real differences in most situations, I think.

I'm not sure I follow the "noise per unit of area" thing.Like I said, I'd be interested to see what neuro and jrista have to say.

Probably because you've read too much jrista .He doesn't seem to believe in the concepts of noise per area or normalization (or at least hadn't for a long time).

I do believe in noise per area normalization. I don't believe that doing so improves photographic dynamic range in any meaningful way. Signal dynamic range, sure, but the process of scaling destroys other image information while normalizing noise...the loss of real-world detail in favor of less apparent noise is a negative tradeoff as far as I am concerned. I don't know how long I'll have to clarify my position on that front...but I don't dispute the benefit purely from a noise standpoint. And when comparing the noise between two cameras, sure, normalize size. If you want to compare photographic dynamic range, normalization destroys detail that might be recoverable with the cameras' native dynamic range at the original image size.

Seriously, EVERY review I've read and every comparison I've looked at makes it clear that Canon's lineup of sensors far outperforms Nikon's in high ISO performance.

The 1DX is probably only barely better at high ISO than the D4 and it also, I think, has a weaker CFA.Canon isn't worse at high ISO now but far better???

I wouldn't say the Canon is "far" better...things are limited largely by physics at that point. In real-world examples, I've noticed more color noise from the D4 at ISO 25600 and 51200 (probably because those settings are digitally amplified, vs. Canon's primarily analog amplification). Outside of that very slight difference, the two cameras are definitely comparable at those levels...you would be hard pressed to notice any real differences in most situations, I think.

Okay. Point well-taken. Post corrected. Strike "far." And, frankly, I may have overreached a bit referring to the 1DX. Upon further consideration, I would say that most of the comparisons I have seen have been between the 5DIII and the D800. General consensus is that the Nikon is great for resolution, but falls apart at higher ISOs, while the 5dIII shines at high ISOs. Early reviews seem to indicate the 6D also performs quite well at high ISOs and from the comparisons I've seen between the 7D and the 24mp Nikons, the Canon 18mp sensor still holds its own against the competition despite its age.

Main point still stands. There is no "legendary" low-light performance on Nikon sensors.

Maybe. There are other things that can add noise besides dark current. Sony Exmor converts sensor data to a digital form as early on in the pipeline as they can, and they gain some benefits from that. They also parallelize processing, allowing lower frequency components, as well as isolating high frequency components away from pixel processors. That minimizes the components in the pipeline that can add additional noise, and minimizes the length of analog components in the pipeline.

So long as Canon continues to use off-die, high frequency ADC and any down-stream amplifiers, I don't foresee their IQ at low ISO being much better than it is now on current Canon sensors, and not as good as Exmor. Dark current is only one of a few primary contributors to noise...the whole pipeline needs to be addressed to compete or surpass the Sony/Nikon alliance and Exmor.

Main point still stands. There is no "legendary" low-light performance on Nikon sensors.

Well, in that case, neither are there any "legendary" low-light performance Canon sensors. Canon has "the edge" compared to the D4, but things are really physics-bound at really high ISO, and the margin for improvement is limited. There is a lot more room to grow and "be legendary" on the low ISO end of things, as Canon is currently performing about 2 stops less than the 14-bit depth of their current cameras theoretically allow. A move to 16-bit sensors, assuming Canon still can only produce ~12 stops of DR, would mean they are FOUR STOPS behind the curve.

I think it's tough to really be legendary at ultra high ISO. Things are just too limited, especially for bayer-type sensors. A move to monochrome, or to a color-splitting rather than color-filtering approach, might increase the headroom there and allow a moderately significant jump forward (imagine ISO 204800 as good as ISO 12800-25600 on the 1D X now). I don't foresee color splitting in Canon or Nikon cameras any time particularly soon, and increasing pixel area, along with reducing sensor temperature, are probably the two most effective ways right now to improve photodiode Q.E. and improve high ISO performance...but the gains won't be massive.

Can anyone explain why DSLRs sensors are not square which would provide more viewing area?

This has been gone over more times on this forum than I would ever count. Simple answer: a square sensor with a diagonal of 43.3mm (same as 36x24mm) would not work due to the extra height needed for the reflex mirror and the flange distance of the EOS system (the taller mirror would hit the rear element or mount of the lens). And as others have pointed out, not all lenses have round baffles to produce the full image circle (only to cover the portion of the image circle that contains the 36x24mm frame.

simple solution. a mirrorless camera! Bingo!Which happens to be exactly what I want. Even if it does not have a 36x36mm sensor. Although I would gladly take one. :-)

Main point still stands. There is no "legendary" low-light performance on Nikon sensors.

I think it's tough to really be legendary at ultra high ISO. Things are just too limited, especially for bayer-type sensors. A move to monochrome, or to a color-splitting rather than color-filtering approach, might increase the headroom there and allow a moderately significant jump forward (imagine ISO 204800 as good as ISO 12800-25600 on the 1D X now). I don't foresee color splitting in Canon or Nikon cameras any time particularly soon, and increasing pixel area, along with reducing sensor temperature, are probably the two most effective ways right now to improve photodiode Q.E. and improve high ISO performance...but the gains won't be massive.

@jrista: "Imagine ISO 204800 as good as ISO 12800-25600 on the 1D X now"...Hope we get there in about 10 years from now...Likely?